Roseburg review. [volume] (Roseburg, Or.) 1885-1920, 1887-06-24
THE PRESIDING ELDER TALKS


IS it ga fair hearing" to misstate the answers
gwen by Day, Mccall, Burkhart and Ledger
wood, so as to destroy the sense and then pub
Iish as mutilated. We do not object TO verbal
in order to save space, but We
will submit it to these gentlemen if their COM
munications have not been unfairly dealt with.
You say -'The Bishop appointed on the board
men whom he was assured he knew would
carry out his wishes" The editor of THE
knows the Bishop did not appoint
a single man on that board, has no authority
TO appoint, has no vote In the Annual confer
ence. The editor of THE REVIEW had more
to do with the appointment OF tie board than
Bishop Keener did, for there are several of
those whom he named out as having been ap-
pointed and paid for their vote by Bishop
keener who were appointed on the recon-
mcndation and by the vote OF the editor OF
THE REVIEW when he was on the board OF
education in the conference. But you say
''Bishop keener did insist on men on the
board being turned out because they wanted
the college turned over to the state" that is
true, and as you say "what sense" would there
be in leaving men on the board who had de-
clared that they were ''from principle consci-
entiously opposed 10 the church conducting a
state institution, when the church had con-
scienciously determined on different course.
So far as we know no one Of these men whose
names are SO lippantly handled by THE RE
VIEW has ever questioned the right OF those
men who were removed from the board to
their conscientious principles, or impugned their
motives, but it was a question of being "con-
sistently against us. But alas! alas! that a
man standing high in the community as a
christian gentleman cannot allow his fellow
men to act on their conscientious principles
without styling them as "crimlnally ignorant
and charging men who have always stood
above repfoach with having been bribed by
their expenses being paid. You may receive
the above as compliment, hut not "unwit
tingly paid" You Entered" these men were
paid, because Oglesby did not say they were
not. Now you infer that "Oglesby, Michael,
Compton, Craig and those oi the Clergy did
get their pay" We have not communicated
with Oglesby and Compton on the subject,
but we hare with all the rest of those referred
to and are authorized TO say not one OF them
received one cent on that score but all paid
their own expenses. What kind of rule is
this that men who have never been accused of
crime before, must all come out in the pub
licprints and aver their ignorance or it will be
inferred" that they are guilty. You say
''Mr. Michael acknowledged that SIoo of this
sacred fund is thus spent" We did not, but
disputed it and demand the proof AS to
your suggestion in reference to taking up the
missionary collections, we respectfully decline
on the ground that we have followed your
suggestions to often already and have gotten
ourselves into trouble by so doing. Please
excuse US, and we will try to manage our own
affairs and assume all responsibility.
Yours Truly
f. G. MICHAEL.
We give space gladly to Bro. Michael, and
have only TO say that we did not ''mutilate, "
the manuscript is on file, come and see. We
did, however, correct some very badly emu
tilated" Englishspelling and composition, in the
MSS. of the gentlemen referred TO in the above
letter. You say the "Bishop has no authority
TO vote etc, " that is true, and you would use
this as ruse to shield the Bishop from what
he absolutely did, that is he wrote resolution:
for the conference, and persisted in debating
who should, and who should not be on the
board. No use TO try to eude the hierarchica
dictatlon in all this work. The guardians o.
the Columbia conference are certainly east O
|
facts my Bro. we did allow you TO differ from
us, and never thought Of turning you out be
cause thereof, but the very first opportunit,
You had to decapitate Mcfarland, Emery
Osborn, McElroy, Bell and others, you did it
and for no other reason under the sun thai
that these gentlemen differed from the polio
Of some of the members of the church. Wer
these men not honest, and capable of running
a college? They were the true friends of tn
Southern Methodist, and why did you pu
them off the board, and put on others VIII
were not superior in any particular to the gen
tlemen named. Your bad logic is also see
carried into your work all along the line
You tried to put Prof. Arnold out of the fac
ulty, not because he is not a scholar and il
structor without superior in Oregon, not be
cause he is not gentleman of exemplary hal
its, and all that goes to make up frst-clas
president and teacher, but because he did M
side with the church trustees in their insan
folly, prompted by an objectionable prejudice
determined as they are TO cripple every pro-
pect that they might have had for the succe:
of the church, and because he contribute
$4,000 to the new college building. Indee
f Mr.. Michael you preach good doctrine in yor
letter, but you fail to practice. We are II
dearly beloved ones who are not allowed
voice unless we agree with you. We did nj
hinder You, but you did shut our wind d
and you know why. You demand proof
to the expenses being paid by the boar
Well here it is in your own language in yo
letter of THE REVIEW June 10th, 81 unde
take TO say that it did not cost the missiona
treasury SIoo. 90. Furthermore no memb
!. Of that board received one cent from 4
treasury, except the ministers in charge
regular work under the auspices of the mi
sionary board" Now | leave the inferen
to any fairminded reader, if he would not cor
to the conclusion that $Ioo.co or thereabol
Il were not spent by the board for expenses
reading your letter. You know "we did nc
1t receive one cent. Why did you mislead
then in your former communication? \
d Bro. this lodging around smacks of dissim
lation, which we told Bro. Craig was an 81
!, ly thing in christian minister" You
have told so many tales about the matter Il
we are becoming confused. You say ag;
. that our advice got you into trouble, you
tirely mistake, if you had followed our adv
'e and had let the college remain where you, q
all had honestly put it, where it belonged,
If the hands of the state, and had not crawfsh
as the records will soon show, then you wol
# have had no trouble. Your trouble con
because you did not follow our advice.
ie CIRD OF THANKS.
The ladies Aid Of the Methodist church